The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether the state’s felony murder sentencing standard is constitutional and what to do if it’s not.
In Michigan, people over 18 who is are of convicted of a felony such as armed robbery where someone is killed in the process are sentenced to life with no chance of parole.
In an order issued Friday, the court said the questions it will consider include whether life without parole for felony murder violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment, whether the state should require proof of malice or intent to commit murder in order to impose the sentence, and whether a decision might be applied retroactively.
The felony murder standard means prosecutors do not have to specifically prove malice or intent. If the court reverses that standard entirely or in part, it could affect the sentences of hundreds of inmates who’ve spent decades in prison.
Timothy Baughman with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan told Michigan Public Radio the challenge to that standard raises difficult questions. He said there are hundreds of inmates serving life without parole in Michigan.
“Should we overrule that and apply it to everybody who’s convicted and still in prison and alive,” said Baughman, “and some of those, they’re not like the getaway drivers, there are some very vicious murderers.”
But attorney Deborah LaBelle with the American Civil Liberties Union said some of the people convicted under the standard are not the actual killers even if they were involved in the underlying felony.
She said Michigan’s felony murder law is very sweeping in that it treats convicted killers and accomplices the same way when it comes to sentencing.
“If someone dies at the hands of someone else and you were in any way involved with the felony, the crime surrounding the homicide, you get punished the exact same way as the person who committed the murder.”
If the Supreme Court overrules its almost 50-year-old precedent, it would also have to determine the remedy.
“What should we do?” LaBelle said. “Should people be resentenced? Should there be a term of years that we determine is appropriate? How do we handle this?”
The court has not set a date for oral arguments.
